[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: Microsoft FUD on binary XML...
Alessandro Triglia wrote: > Robin Berjon wrote: >>Well, no, it's not. It it were, you'd be able to get two >>people to agree >>on the answer to the "of what?" question. XML is just a syntax. >>Maybe >>your application layer uses XML to encode some information, > > In the case of ASN.1, it is not the application layer that uses XML to > encode information. It is the standard XML encoding rules (EXTENDED-XER) > that use XML to encode the instances of abstract types. Yes, but from XML's point of view whatever is sitting above it be it Joe's XML Interface, an ASN.1 toolset, or some application's ad hoc model, is an "application". That application may be something that makes things simpler/more flexible/more abstract/whatever to another higher layer that it considers to be the application, it's still an application to XML. Each layer has its point of view, and that of ASN.1/XER is naturally different from that of XML. The reason I'm being boringly pedant about this is that in the binary interchange debate it will be of crucial importance to figure out whether one is better off with a binary syntax mapping to XML 1.1 (with no data model, or however many data models one may want) or if what is best is an encoding of some data model (Infoset, PSVI, QDM, etc), where values of "better off" and "best" are heavily multidimensional. Given how much room there is for disagreement, getting our terminology straight early and often is likely to be helpful ;) -- Robin Berjon
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|